Say NO to Eskom

B

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,229
Reaction score
27
Location
Slaapstad
Eskom is about to win a giant loan from the World Bank to build a massive coal plant. We have just days to stop this disastrous plan, which would lock South Africa in to a dirty-energy economy. Let's tell the World Bank board that South Africa wants clean energy, not coal -- sign the petition now:

Sign the Petition!
Sign the Petition!
In just days, the World Bank will vote on a proposed R29 billion loan to Eskom to build the fourth-largest coal plant in the world -- a climate disaster. At the same time, Eskom plans to effectively double electricity rates over the next three years. Big polluters are getting cut-rate electricity while ratepayers would be left to pay back this disastrous loan.

But the loan is not a done deal. Some creditors are having second thoughts, with the US expected to abstain and several European delegates reportedly on the fence. And we can tip the balance -- we just need one "no" vote to table the proposal since the Bank rarely proceeds with divisive votes!

While Eskom trumpets the plan, we can tell World Bank directors how we feel about coal. Let the Word Bank know that we don't want its dirty loan - click below to sign the petition today:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_eskom_coal_loan/?vl

The Bank is right to recognize South Africa's energy needs, but this loan would be putting money in the wrong place. Instead of dirty coal, South Africa needs energy efficiency and clean, renewable sources of power that people who most need it can actually afford. If this loan is approved, South Africans will pay for it several-fold -- in meteoric electricity rates, missed clean energy investments, polluted air, destroyed land, and the warming earth on which we live.

Dozens of South African environmental, community, church, labour, academic and women's organizations, representing a diverse, unified voice have mobilized to stop the loan. But every voice counts in these last days before the World Bank vote. Act now -- sign the petition opposing the loan:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_eskom_coal_loan/?vl

With hope,

Ben, Paul, Graziela, David, Alice, Ricken, and the whole Avaaz team

More information --

NGO Response to the World Bank panel report and Fact Sheet
http://www.groundwork.org.za/Public...onsetotheWorldBankpanelreportandFactSheet.pdf

Original World Bank Fact Sheet
http://www.groundwork.org.za/Publications/EskomFinalDocs/WBEskomloanfactsheet.pdf

Eskom Tariff Hikes Slammed
http://allafrica.com/stories/201002250561.html

World Bank to Consider $4 Billion Loan Application From Eskom
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=aGkhG0hBKlrE

SAfrica grants Eskom 24.8 pct price rise for 2010/11
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEB199720100224?type=marketsNews
Click to expand...

gogogo
 
Oh God, its like I've stepped into the twilight zone.

Lets ignore the fact that AGW is unproven right now and still in controversy, thanks to information that recently came to light after the University of East Anglia was hacked. Lets ignore that. And although its not going to be easy, because we all know how corrupt the ANC is, we need to ignore the corruption factor too. Why? Because whatever we do, whether its nuclear power, or any kind of renewable energy, corruption will raise its ugly head. I guarantee it. Think you can build a multi billion dollar power source in this country without crossing the right palms? Think again. So its useless to be against this because of corruption, the best we can do is vote the right government in that is actually anti-corruption.

Anyhoo... What we have is some green idiots trying to block a power plant in SA because they dont think its green enough for their country. They have the budget to waste on "renewable and green" (*) energy sources such as tidal generators and windfarms, we in South Africa do not have that luxury. We urgently need power to continue our growth, and coal is the best option for us economically. We could build a nuclear plant, but for some reason people are against those, despite the fact its probably the cleanest power available once you have reprocessed spent fuel (although fuel availability is a problem). We have an abundance of coal, we dont have an abundance of money, and we need power. I fail to see how the tree hugging concerns of some zealots in the UK who have accepted AGW as gospel should dictate the welfare of millions of South Africans. Its all very well to sit on your high horse and say this energy is not green, but they just dont face the same economic situation that we do.

Besides which, haven't there been recent advances in coal burning technology to the point where its nowhere near as dirty as it used to be?

* Nevermind the health concerns raised by people who live near windfarms, and are subject to the noise they make. Or the fact that you need to blanket our country with them and destroy the environment anyway to produce the power anyway. Or that very few places are suitable for tidal generators, and even then it will inevitable harm marine life.
 
Last edited:
Ancalagon said:
Oh God, its like I've stepped into the twilight zone.

Lets ignore the fact that AGW is unproven right now and still in controversy, thanks to information that recently came to light after the University of East Anglia was hacked. Lets ignore that. And although its not going to be easy, because we all know how corrupt the ANC is, we need to ignore the corruption factor too. Why? Because whatever we do, whether its nuclear power, or any kind of renewable energy, corruption will raise its ugly head. I guarantee it. Think you can build a multi billion dollar power source in this country without crossing the right palms? Think again. So its useless to be against this because of corruption, the best we can do is vote the right government in that is actually anti-corruption.

Anyhoo... What we have is some green idiots trying to block a power plant in SA because they dont think its green enough for their country. They have the budget to waste on "renewable and green" (*) energy sources such as tidal generators and windfarms, we in South Africa do not have that luxury. We urgently need power to continue our growth, and coal is the best option for us economically. We could build a nuclear plant, but for some reason people are against those, despite the fact its probably the cleanest power available once you have reprocessed spent fuel (although fuel availability is a problem). We have an abundance of coal, we dont have an abundance of money, and we need power. I fail to see how the tree hugging concerns of some zealots in the UK who have accepted AGW as gospel should dictate the welfare of millions of South Africans. Its all very well to sit on your high horse and say this energy is not green, but they just dont face the same economic situation that we do.

Besides which, haven't there been recent advances in coal burning technology to the point where its nowhere near as dirty as it used to be?

* Nevermind the health concerns raised by people who live near windfarms, and are subject to the noise they make. Or the fact that you need to blanket our country with them and destroy the environment anyway to produce the power anyway. Or that very few places are suitable for tidal generators, and even then it will inevitable harm marine life.
Click to expand...

Now that you're done with your name-calling, mind if I ask a question? Did you read the report?

http://www.groundwork.org.za/Public...onsetotheWorldBankpanelreportandFactSheet.pdf

FTA:

WB Claim: After full consideration of viable alternatives, coal is still the least-cost
and most viable option for meeting the base load required by Africa’s largest
economy.
In NERSA’s own studies (e.g. NERSA's Record of Decision on REFIT II, Sept. 2009,
pg. 14), the main SA government agency regulating electricity has illustrated the cost
of various technologies up to 2030. Fossil fuel and nuclear energy are increasing in
cost, while renewable energies are decreasing in costs, with biomass, wind, biogas,
and landfill gas all considerably cheaper by 2030. All renewable technologies would
be cheaper than oil, coal and gas technology by the end of 2015 on NERSA's own
calculations, and would not be subject to the admitted volatility of fuel costs. On these
purely economic terms and excluding calculations on jobs and environmental costs
and savings, it is obvious that a generation mix heavily favouring renewable energy is
in the longer-term economic interest of both Eskom and the nation. If jobs are
included as a factor (which is a Government priority), then the case for renewables
grows (source: http://www.earthlife.org.za/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/
job-creation-potential-of-re-in-sa-holm.pdf).
The Bank and Eskom have not picked the capacity plan that maximises job creation,
or at the very least, they have not justified capacity choices in terms of jobs in relation
to alternatives. This is an important point that deserves consideration, since Eskom is
asking South African society to fund its capital expenditure programme, largely
through tariffs.
Finally, as an alternative to Medupi, the Bank did not consider the Demand Side
Management strategy, especially the ending of Eskom Special Pricing Agreements.
On 24 February 2010, Eskom filed court papers alleging that Mr Jacob Maroga, the
Eskom CEO with whom the Bank negotiated the loan (subsequently fired by the
Eskom Board of Directors in November 2009), had not fulfilled his contractual
responsibility for renegotiating these Special Pricing Agreements, with the likes of
BHP Billiton, Anglo American, Arecelor Mittal, Alcan and other huge corporations.
Most were originally negotiated during apartheid, and can be considered in the
category of Odious Contracts. Without renegotiating the contracts to the Energy
Intensive Users Group – 38 firms which receive 40% of South Africa’s electricity at
extremely low (undisclosed) rates – the Bank did not properly exhaust non-coal
options for addressing South Africa’s electricity crisis.
Click to expand...

Also, there are numerous global warming threads on these boards. If you'd like to argue your anti-science view that it's "not proven" you're welcome to come and argue there.
 
No, I'm not anti science, I'm pro science, and thats why I'm anti global warming - because the consensus has been manufactured by a political body (the IPCC). Numerous scientific groups, such as the most prominent climate scientists in Japan, disagree with it. Have you heard about the University of East Anglia leak that showed that data was being manipulated to show a trend, and that the original data was hidden. Not only is hiding your data contrary to the interests of science, they did so in a manner illegal according to Freedom of Information laws.

Anyway.... I dont have an issue with renewable energy itself. Biofuel, for instance, I think is very exciting, as long as its not ethanol which is too corrosive to use in engines. What I do have a problem with is people who dont have South Africa's best interests at heart dictating what it should and should not based on mistaken beliefs that they hold. I'm not quite convinced that the report has taken all factors of renewable energy into account, such as how long it will take for such projects to realistically meet our energy demands. Biofuel, as exciting as it is, currently cant be manufactured on a large enough scale for our use. It would be exciting to pioneer such research and a practical application of it, but sadly I dont think our budget or energy needs make that practical. Just a few months ago we were still having power cuts, and now we want to start a long term plan to use renewable energy when our growth is still continuing. Not wise IMHO.
 
Ancalagon said:
No, I'm not anti science, I'm pro science, and thats why I'm anti global warming - because the consensus has been manufactured by a political body (the IPCC). Numerous scientific groups, such as the most prominent climate scientists in Japan, disagree with it. Have you heard about the University of East Anglia leak that showed that data was being manipulated to show a trend, and that the original data was hidden. Not only is hiding your data contrary to the interests of science, they did so in a manner illegal according to Freedom of Information laws.
Click to expand...

Pity everything you said there is untrue.

The British House of Commons today issued a report exonerating Professor Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Dr. Jones was embroiled in controversy following the theft of internal emails and documents from the University’s servers in November of last year.

The report states that “the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced,” and that Dr. Jones’s actions were “in line with common practice in the climate science community,” and the CRU’s “analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.”

The review by the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee began in January in the wake of the ‘Climategate’ media frenzy. While the committee’s report recommends that climate scientists should seek to improve transparency in their work, release raw data when possible, and provide more detail on their methodologies, the committee firmly concludes that there was no dishonesty on the part of Dr. Jones and the CRU. The committee compared the results of other independent analyses of climate data to that of the CRU, and found that they are consistent and independently verifiable.
Click to expand...

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?224440-CRU-chief-exonerated

The vast majority of the raw data is available too.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Also, every major scientific body on earth endorses AGW.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.[2] Some organisations hold non-committal positions.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/science/earth/07safrica.html

"South African officials contend that the plant is desperately needed to help the country’s economy, the largest on the continent, and those of six neighboring nations generate growth and combat poverty.

...

“We run the most sophisticated economy in Africa,” she said. “We supply 60 percent of southern Africa’s energy. If we’re not able to come to the table, the consequences are huge. This is big. And renewable energy cannot provide us with that scale.” "

Need I say more?
 
FlatspinZA said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/science/earth/07safrica.html

"South African officials contend that the plant is desperately needed to help the country’s economy, the largest on the continent, and those of six neighboring nations generate growth and combat poverty.

“We run the most sophisticated economy in Africa,” she said. “We supply 60 percent of southern Africa’s energy. If we’re not able to come to the table, the consequences are huge. This is big. And renewable energy cannot provide us with that scale.” "

Need I say more?
Click to expand...


In NERSA’s own studies (e.g. NERSA's Record of Decision on REFIT II, Sept. 2009,
pg. 14), the main SA government agency regulating electricity has illustrated the cost
of various technologies up to 2030. Fossil fuel and nuclear energy are increasing in
cost, while renewable energies are decreasing in costs, with biomass, wind, biogas,
and landfill gas all considerably cheaper by 2030. All renewable technologies would
be cheaper than oil, coal and gas technology by the end of 2015 on NERSA's own
calculations, and would not be subject to the admitted volatility of fuel costs. On these
purely economic terms and excluding calculations on jobs and environmental costs
and savings, it is obvious that a generation mix heavily favouring renewable energy is
in the longer-term economic interest of both Eskom and the nation. If jobs are
included as a factor (which is a Government priority), then the case for renewables
grows
Click to expand...

FTA
 
Me thinks I should have said more :D

My point: Why are we responsible for supplying 60% of Southern Africa's electricity? Our 25% hike is funding Eskom's expansion so they can continue to supply other nations! I am all for renewable energy & even nuclear power would be a lot "greener" than the route we are following.
 
FlatspinZA said:
Me thinks I should have said more :D

My point: Why are we responsible for supplying 60% of Southern Africa's electricity? Our 25% hike is funding Eskom's expansion so they can continue to supply other nations! I am all for renewable energy & even nuclear power would be a lot "greener" than the route we are following.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. Agree with your point, BTW.
 
These increase in electricity cost have a silver lining.

For us middle classers, the pricepoint at which solar/wind in your own home becomes viable is getting closer. If a sizeable percentage of the "paying" population gets off the grid, Eishkom will be even more screwed as that revenue will be lost...

I reckon you might even see people getting bank loans approved for a couple 10's of R1000's to kit house out with renewable energy. This will pay itself off in 10-15 years. 2nd bond or something- sure some of that is in the pipeline...
 
The simple fact is that Nuclear Plants cost three times as much to build and to run per MW. So a much bigger loan and even bigger tariff hikes would be needed to go that route. Not to mention all the money that has already been spent on drawing up the plans, negotiating contracts etc for Medupi would go straight down the drain. While Medupi will be the fourth largest coal-fired station in the world, it will also be one of the most efficient and it will include lots of technology like Flue-Gas Desulpherisation Plants to minimise it's environmental impact.

Whether or not glabal warming is real isn't the issue here, there really isn't any other choice at this point. Renewable energy sources are still an emergent technology and none of them can reliably give the kind of boost in capacity that is needed at the moment. Medupi will push out almost 5GW at full load once it is completed and it wont come a moment too soon.

I'm all for saving the environment, but signing a petition that will effectively cripple this country's economy is not the way to go about it. All of the coal-fired plants in the country are going to be around for another 20 years at least. You want to help minimise the amount of greenhouse gasses etc that are released, do your part to make sure less coal is burnt. Unless you've already switched all your lights to low-wattage bulbs, insulated your geyser (or fitted a solar one - even better) and bought as much low-power electrical equipment as possible you don't really have room to bitch about how big Eskom's impact on the environment is, since they're doing it on your behalf.
 
Ancalagon said:
He was whitewashed by his own government, I would hardly expect them to take him to account to his actions. You know he massaged his data to remove sources that didnt agree with the result he wanted, and refused to give out his source data? You know that right?
Click to expand...

No he didn't. There is NO indication in any of the emails that data was unscrupulously "massaged". I challenge you to provide anything that backs your claim.
 
BCO said:
No he didn't. There is NO indication in any of the emails that data was unscrupulously "massaged". I challenge you to provide anything that backs your claim.
Click to expand...

Heres a quote from the ICO:

A spokesman for the ICO said: “The legislation prevents us from taking any action but from looking at the emails it’s clear to us a breach has occurred.” Breaches of the act are punishable by an unlimited fine. [SM - actually, the maximum fine is only 5,000 pounds.]

In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: “The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.”

He added: “The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.”
Click to expand...
Source

The important thing to note, besides the fact that they hid their data illegally, is that they hid it at all. A scientist should have no problem providing his data to his peers for them to reproduce and verify his results. Why was the CRU so keen not to?

And here's a long post about the trick and what it hides.

A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data [i.e. the Briffa reconstruction] somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly. [We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result (which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present..(Folland, Sep 22, 1999, in 0938031546.txt)
Click to expand...

Dilutes the message significantly? What message, pray tell? I thought investigation should come before conclusion, not the other way around?
 
BCO said:
alt146 - do you disagree with NERSA's findings then?
Click to expand...

Not without actually seeing the numbers that they used to make that claim. However, I have spoken to a couple of the people who were involved in Medupi's planning, or were kept in the loop and there just aren't any economically viable alternatives to coal at this point. If renewable energy becomes cheaper than coal in 10 years time then great, we'll start building solar farms in the kalahri. The way the country has been growing, the grid will have to be continually upgraded for some time to come, there will be time to start moving over to renewable energy in the future. Right here, right now though, Medupi is already behind schedule. It might not even be done in time to prevent another energy crisis. I don't think that petition will have any real effect on whether the loan goes through, but every time it gets dealyed for whatever reason, it means more problems down the line.

Eskom is working on moving towards renewable energy - as the articles says it's a long term plan though. Medupi (and the loans required to build it) is a short term solution to a problem that was caused by poor legislature and decision making in the past, combined with an unfortunately timed recession. There are lots of plans to retrofit existing stations with more efficient technology and investigations into alternate energy sources, but they all involve money that Eskom doesnt have right now.

At the end of the day there are two choices - pollution or load-shedding. Noone particularly likes pollution, but the public would be a helluva lot more upset if they didnt have power.

Like I said, making a difference starts at home and is way more effective than bitching and moaning about things that are unlikely to change and that you don't really have the full facts on.
 
Ancalagon said:
Heres a quote from the ICO:


Source

The important thing to note, besides the fact that they hid their data illegally, is that they hid it at all. A scientist should have no problem providing his data to his peers for them to reproduce and verify his results. Why was the CRU so keen not to?

And here's a long post about the trick and what it hides.



Dilutes the message significantly? What message, pray tell? I thought investigation should come before conclusion, not the other way around?
Click to expand...

Look, I'm tired of having to keep fighting the misinformation that's unendingly spewed forth by the denial camp - all these issues have been discussed at length right here on MyBB. I'm not going to get bogged down yet again trying to explain the truth in the face of outright misinformation coming from McIntyre et al.

I'll just let the following graph do the talking:

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/5temps.jpg

Please explain how "Climategate" - even if true (which it patently isn't) - explains away the above graph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X